John Eastman, one of ex-President Donald Trump’s attorneys and the man accused of designing the legal strategy that sought to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election, is currently embroiled in a disbarment hearing that could result in him losing his license to practice law in California. But the media, which asked to cover the hearing so it could be shared with the public, is getting only limited access to testimony.

State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland issued an order on June 18 that denied media requests to allow audio and video recordings of the proceedings that are now featuring testimony from Eastman, his witnesses, and lawyers from the State Bar. Roland demanded that permission for recordings and photographs must be requested in advance, and as of June 21, all were denied except ones from print journalists or reporters who wanted recordings solely for personal use. Requests from the Associated Press, CNN, National Public Radio, Bloomberg News, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper, were all denied. The Washington Post’s request for notetaking was permitted.

So the public can’t see it or hear it, but they can still read all about it.

Efforts to disbar Eastman began in October 2021 when a group of lawyers and government employees filed a complaint with the California State Bar, which investigated the complaint for a full year. In January 2023, the Bar filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) against Eastman because he “engaged in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states.”

The charges include allegations that Eastman made false and misleading statements about fraud, including those at Trump’s infamous January 6 rally that “contributed to provoking a crowd to assault and breach the Capital to intimidate then-Vice President Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.”

Regardless of the outcome of the current hearing, the California Supreme Court will be the final decision-maker about Eastman’s misconduct and the discipline it warrants. If the Bar’s ruling recommends disbarment or suspension, it will be sent to the State Supreme Court to decide whether the Bar’s recommendation will be honored.

Eastman took the stand at his disbarment hearing on June 20 to defend himself against 11 charges that alleged he was the mastermind behind Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. He is accused of making false and misleading statements about the discredited charges of election fraud.

Eastman’s testimony would be worth watching. For example, on June 23, he referred to an affidavit by a truck driver who claimed to have evidence of election fraud. According to NBC News, the State Bar found that the man was not only a truck driver, but a “ghost hunter,” who was not discredited by Eastman because “he did no research to assess his credibility.” Evidence would not be hard to find, since the York Daily Record in December 2020 said the man had “a lengthy history of drug abuse, mental health issues and allegations of domestic violence.”

This was not the only flaw in Eastman’s defense. According to the Washington Post, Eastman said his analysis of the Georgia election results was given to him by what he called an “expert” accountant named Bryan Geels. The State Bar attorney pointed out that Geels “had neither experience in elections nor a degree in statistics.” Eastman repeatedly said he couldn’t remember what steps he had personally taken to verify the fraud claims.

Turning to Eastman’s efforts to have Vice President Pence delay the certification of the Electoral College votes, Randall Miller, one of his attorneys, said Eastman just wanted to delay the vote so a “reasonable investigation” into “voting irregularities” could be conducted. He denied that his client was trying to “invent ways to steal the election, and said he was merely trying to make sure the election had been “legally conducted.” Miller argued that there was “substantial debate” among constitutional scholars regarding Pence’s constitutional authority.

The State Bar attorney Duncan Carling disputed these claims and said Eastman was “fully aware” of all the alleged improprieties.

The disbarment hearing could conclude as early as this week. Unfortunately, in this age of audio and video dominance, it is unfortunate members of the public are deprived of making their own determinations about disbarment based on what they see and hear.